Background: Nikita Hand's case against Conor McGregor

Nikita Hand has won her civil case against Conor McGregor.

She was awarded nearly €250,000 in damages after the High Court jury found that she was raped by Conor McGregor in a Dublin hotel in December 2018.

There were no exemplary or aggravated damages.

Here is the background to the case.

Nikita Hand's claim

Nikita Hand said she met Conor McGregor on the morning of 9 December 2018, after being out all night at her Christmas party where she had drunk alcohol and taken cocaine.

She had been in contact with him via Direct Messages on Instagram.

She said she and her colleague, Danielle Kealey, thought they were going to a party with Mr McGregor in the penthouse of the Beacon Hotel in South Dublin.

She said she was not looking for sex but she claimed Mr McGregor came on to her and wouldn’t take no for an answer.

She said he put her in a chokehold three times, after which she gave up fighting and he brutally raped and battered her.

Medical evidence

A doctor at the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit at the Rotunda hospital who saw her the next morning, said she had a "multiplicity of injuries", and he classed them as "moderate to severe".

He had to use a forceps to remove a tampon from her body which he described as being "wedged" at the very top of her vagina.

An experienced paramedic told the court Ms Hand’s bruising was the worst she had seen in a long time.

She still suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder the court heard and has had to give up work as a hairdresser.

Her lawyers said the medical evidence corroborated Ms Hand’s account.

She was badly beaten up, they said, and Mr McGregor did it.

They said he was "not a man", but a devious coward who should apologise to her.

Conor McGregor

Conor McGregor, however, told the High Court that Ms Hand was "full of lies".

He said they had consensual, unprotected sex twice, during an encounter he described as "athletic and vigorous", "joyous" and full of "excitement".

He said he did not choke Ms Hand, "there was no tampon" and the bruising on her body did not come from him.

He asked gardaí if another man may have been involved.

He suggested for the first time in the witness box that she may have received the bruising when she "swan dived" into the bathtub at the hotel or that she was "knocked about" elsewhere during what he described as her "three-day bender".

Mr McGregor said there was not "one iota of distress" during his time with Ms Hand.

He told the court he was "beyond petrified" when he realised an allegation of rape was being made against him and he followed his lawyers’ advice.

James Lawrence

James Lawrence said he had consensual sex with Ms Hand twice after Mr McGregor and Ms Kealey had left the hotel. Ms Hand said she had no memory of this.

He said there was no tampon and he saw no bruising other than a small bruise on her leg or arm which she was worried about briefly.

Her lawyers said the men were planning to make Mr Lawrence "the fall guy" and were in collusion to try to confuse the narrative and make Ms Hand look bad.

Mr Lawrence denied this and asked why he would put himself up for the rape of a woman.

CCTV evidence

Both men urged the jury to look at lies Ms Hand had told and pointed to her demeanour in CCTV footage taken at the hotel before and especially in the hours after the alleged incident.

The footage showed Ms Hand in a lift and in the area around the lift - at times appearing to be affectionate to both men.

The footage also showed Ms Hand on her phone. Records revealed a text she said she sent in a panic to her boyfriend from the hotel room was actually sent from the car park of the hotel and was followed by what Mr McGregor’s lawyers called a "little victory dance".

She said the footage showed a drunk and vulnerable woman who should have been taken home. The defence said she did not look like someone who claimed she had been brutally raped a few hours previously.

Judge’s comments

In his summing up, Mr Justice Owens told the jury they should base their decision on a sound evidential basis and not lazy assumptions or victim blaming.

They had to decide if Ms Hand’s account that she was raped was more likely than not to represent the objective truth.

If they found in her favour, he said they should award her substantial damages as rape was a very serious matter.

He said damages should be awarded to take account of a person’s pain and suffering and also to acknowledge the wrong they had suffered.

Aggravated damages should be awarded if there was a level of violence or as a result of the attitude of the perpetrator, including a refusal to apologise or an attack on the victim’s character.

Punitive or exemplary damages would mark their disapproval of the conduct of a defendant in all the circumstances he told them.